Walmart to Ban 10 Chemicals From Their Stores

The links in the post below may be affiliate links. Read the full disclosureBy Mavis Butterfield on October 2, 2013 · 5 Comments

I stumbled across an article the other day about Walmart banning 10 toxic chemicals from all of the fragrances, cosmetics, household cleaners, and personal care products sold in their stores. Now, I don’t particularly like shopping at Walmart, but I thought this was pretty cool.

The ban is completely voluntary, after listening to requests by consumers and non-toxic companies on the dangers of toxic chemicals. Walmart is one of the biggest retailers in the world, so their setting the precedent actually carries a lot of weight. Companies will either have to remove the chemicals from their products or face not being carried by Walmart at all. {Apparently, P&G, Target, Sears, K-Mart, Lowes, Home Depot and Kroger have already made similar, smaller scale chemical bans.}

I think it’s pretty cool that companies {with a lot of potential power to change things} are taking a voluntary stand against harmful chemicals. It’s one of those rare moments when the consumers have driven the market in a more responsible direction. Wahoo! Score one for the consumer.

What do you think? Pretty cool, right?

~Mavis

Seventh Generation cleaning products provided this link in the article if you would like to sign a petition urging Congress to pass the Chemical Safety Act.

This post may contain affiliate links. These affiliate links help support this site. For more information, please see my disclosure policy. Thank you for supporting One Hundred Dollars a Month.

Comments

Mavis,
I like and respect your blog, and have for quite a while now. But since you asked, I have to disagree with you on this one. The PR benefit of banning certain chemicals may outweigh the benefit to consumers on this one. “Chemical” is not a four-letter word–without them life would be VERY different. The decision to allow, sell or buy products should be determined by the market, not bureaucrats or suggestions from California-esque environmental advocates that are not scientists and professionally advance their agendas.
From my experience, “green” alternatives usually do NOT work as well, and waste the consumer’s money. Rarely do they replace the product they claim to be an alternative to. If they were equal, the consumer would buy them and make them the preferred product. But all is not equal. Instead, companies like Seventh Generation see an opportunity to force their inferior products on the consumer and force out effective products through government legislation and corporate environmental special interests. Chemicals are only harmful when used incorrectly. We do not need more big brothers and sisters telling us what to use.
Just look at the ethanol in gasoline fiasco, where yard maintenance engines run poorly and are damaged by the ethanol. Gas cans that don’t have vents, and don’t flow well. Dishwashers and refrigerators and toilets and soon wood stoves that have been environmentally regulated to the point that they don’t work anywhere near as well as their predecessors. IF they could provide a viable, equal alternative, I’d be all for it. From what I’ve experienced, however, that rarely happens.
What do you think? Is greener always better? Do you want the entire nation to become the legislative basket case and nanny state that California has become? Let the consumer market decide, except for those cases where immediate, clear and present danger is obvious, not unproven “just in case” junk-science conjecture (like the Global Warming fiasco, but that’s another rant entirely). I can agree with labeling products, but let us decide.
I think knee-jerk “Wahoo” reactions like yours are based more on the emotion and generalities, instead of logic, science and social responsibility. If you want to buy Seventh Generation products, please do. Just don’t expect others to jump on that transition to inferior products.
Environmentalism has become big, profitable business for many years now. Recommend everyone do the necessary research and decide for themselves, rather than have biased “facts” fed to them. Just like the news nowadays–if you listen only to the mainstream news media, you ain’t getting but a fraction of the truth, with many distortions.

Respectfully
HarleyDog (Born and raised in Port Angeles, now a former resident of many places around the Earth, currently based out of Ohio)

@Harleydog, I do respect your opinion, however, for people like me who are chemically sensitive this is amazing. Do you realize that over 15% of the population is highly sensitive to these types of chemicals…to the point it can actually make people so ill they cannot function? These chemicals are unnecessary. I use natural cleaners in my home and they work just fine. I understand what you’re saying, but for many of us, this might give us a chance to have a little bit of our lives back.

I’d be more impressed if they actually announced which chemicals they are banning. Seems kind of strange to hold that one back. I’m more inclined to believe they want to jump on the PR wagon saying they are banning chemicals like P&G and J&J and they will figure out what they need to ban later.